Posted on 11/09/2014 3:09:29 PM PST by NYer
Neither is Peter.
(Col 1:15-20)Or are you asserting that this passage is about Peter?
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.
Sorry...The apostles beat you to it...You really think PolyCarp was confused as to what the bible was when he was preaching and teaching???
In short, to assemble the books in the Bible. This is what the early Church fathers did using the sacred oral tradition, contemporary sources, and ritual.
You've been duped...Had there been some evidence of 'sacred oral tradition' it would have shown up by now...Ritual??? Your religion established the word of God based on ritual???
Hey, don't forget Tradition! ;)
“Peter and Adam are dead, thus continuity!”
No, Peter and successors - thus continuity.
“Really, that’s ridiculous — but it’s your assertion: that the church is founded on a man who is dead.”
No, it is a fact that Christ founded the Church on Peter - and many Protestant exegetes agree.
“My assertion is that it is founded on the Jesus, God in human flesh, who died to pay for my sins and now lives.”
Jesus says Peter. I believe Him. You don’t.
“Which do you think would be the recipe for a living church?”
Whatever Jesus says.
“To be founded on a dead man who could not save himself, or to be founded on the Living God who saved many?”
To be founded however God said it was going to be. He said Peter. Peter it is.
“By definition, it does: Apostolic succession is the method whereby the ministry of the Christian Church is held to be derived from the apostles by a continuous succession, which has usually been associated with a claim that the succession is through a series of bishops.”
Continuous succession - you said those words. That’s the point.
“If they were not different they could not be successors.”
If there was no continuity there were no successors. You lost this debate already. Your own language has defeated you.
No, actually it hasn't; it has only shown you to alter meanings: first you said that the church was founded on Peter [and no-one else], and now you say Peter and his successors.
I will not give you a spring board for more anti-Catholic rants, tantrum’s, or hissy fits.
Rants, tantrums, and hissy fits? Where?
All I see here is mere disagreement.
Here, Paul named himself first and Peter last...And Paul nor anyone else mentions Peter in Rome...And supposedly he was the head of the Roman Catholic church...
1Co_1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
Gal_2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
I'd say that blows that boat right out of the water before you even get started...
In the epilogue[33] of the Gospel of John, Jesus hints at the death by which Peter would glorify God,[Jn. 21:18-19]saying "…when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and take you where you do not want to go." This is interpreted by some as a reference to Peter's crucifixion.[21]
According to the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, Peter labored in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there his life was ended by martyrdom.[46] The death of Peter is attested to by Tertullian at the end of the 2nd century, and by Origen in Eusebius, Church History III.1. Origen wrote: "Peter was crucified at Rome with his head downwards, as he himself had desired to suffer."[26] This is why an upside down cross is generally accepted as a symbol of Peter, with the interpretation that he would not have considered himself worthy enough to die the same way as his Saviour.[47]
"Quo vadis, Domine?" (1602) by Annibale Carracci
The mention in the New Testament of the death of Peter says that Jesus indicated its form by saying: "You will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."[48] Early church tradition (as indicated below) says Peter probably died by crucifixion (with arms outstretched) at the time of the Great Fire of Rome of the year 64. Margherita Guarducci, who led the research leading to the rediscovery of Peter's reputed tomb in its last stages (1963–1968), concludes Peter died on 13 October AD 64 during the festivities on the occasion of the "dies imperii" of Emperor Nero. This took place three months after the disastrous fire that destroyed Rome for which the emperor (Nero) wished to blame the Christians. This "dies imperii" (regnal day anniversary) was an important one, exactly ten years after Nero ascended to the throne, and it was 'as usual' accompanied by much bloodshed. Traditionally, Roman authorities sentenced him to death by crucifixion. According to the apocryphal Acts of Peter, he was crucified head down. Tradition also locates his burial place where the Basilica of Saint Peter was later built, directly beneath the Basilica's high altar.
“No, actually it hasn’t; it has only shown you to alter meanings: first you said that the church was founded on Peter [and no-one else], and now you say Peter and his successors.”
Nope. Nowhere did I Church was founded on the successors. Why are you making up something I never said?
Now, having said that, you might want to read Ephesians 2:19-20.
With Christ himself as the cornerstone
Absolutely - and still built on Peter by Christ, just as Jesus says.
This whole chain of argument is laughable. The “church” is a third century invention designed to replace Israel in the master plan of G-d. There is no such thing in scripture. The Nazarine never heard the word. He was a Jewish rabbi/prophet who lived entirely within the context of Torah Observant Judaism. He kept the Torah. Ate Kosher. Kept the Shabbat. Followed all the regulations regarding access to the Temple. He reaffirmed the eternity of the Taryog Mitzvoth. In short, he was not a Christian; He was a Jew. What got him in trouble was his passion to bring the burning flame of Torah to the entire world, to every nation. That’s what the “New Covenant is: the Torah, written on your heart.
Daniel 4 was in aramaic, because it is the personal testimony of Nebuchadnezzar, not the writings of Daniel.
A few aramaic words in other books because they have no parallel in Hebrew.
Yes, God's law written on the heart — but no, not the law of sacrificing animals and circumcision; as James's words, and the judgement of the council of Jerusalem concerning Gentile believers shows:
(Acts 15:1-29)As Paul observed: the law never saves, it only condemns; and the writer of Hebrews confirmed it.
Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders. So they were sent on their way by the church, and as they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, they reported the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the believers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, “It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses.”
The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “My brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first looked favorably on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name. This agrees with the words of the prophets, as it is written,
‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; from its ruins I will rebuild it, and I will set it up, so that all other peoples may seek the Lord— even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called. Thus says the Lord, who has been making these things known from long ago.’
Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood. For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.”
Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers, with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds, we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them to you, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
(Heb 10:12-18)That we do not continually sacrifice animals for sins is the result of Jesus's work in paying for and forgiving our sins.
But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, “he sat down at the right hand of God,” and since then has been waiting “until his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet.” For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying,“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds,”he also adds,
“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
And yet the Bible records its pre-Babel conversations in Hebrew — there's nothing to indicate that Hebrew was spoken pre-Babel.
(IOW, that testimony could easily have been included as a Hebrew translation, if it were imperative to keep the scriptures Hebrew.)
A few aramaic words in other books because they have no parallel in Hebrew.
*nod* — Such it is with multiple-languages, if your language doesn't have a concept you borrow it from another.
I'm just really leery of the language matters most
/holy tongue
types (especially the name guys) as it comes off to me as magic-wordism
where concepts and understanding are discarded in favor of particular throat-and-mouth noises — Pentecost is an interesting counter-example to that mode of thought, IMO, as the foreigners heard the message in their own tongue, not that they were suddenly made able to understand Hebrew.
Have you never read the words of Yeshua in the “sermon on the Mount”. I didn’t say it, he did. The Jerusalem council was affirming that righteousness is accounted to us by Faith, just as it was with our father Avraham. Nevertheless HaShem himself testified that Avraham Avinu “ keeps my statutes and commandments.” The Gentiles were saved by Faith, not by Rabinnical Halacha. Immediately, the council imposed a Torah observance on the new convert that would allow him to be accepted in the synagogues as a Ger Toshav, one who was joining himself to Israel. These Torah statutes dealt with Kosher Law, Prohibition of Sexual sin, and the demand to abandon Idolatry and its graven images. It is Explicitly forbidden to make any image as a representation of Deity. The Catholic Church has failed on all counts. It’s theology and practice are contrary to the Word of G-d in more ways than we have time to enumerate. Catholics are wonderful, sincere people, and if they are hungry for G-d, he will bring them out, just as he brought our fathers out of Egypt by the hand of Moshe Rabbeinu,Moses our Teacher.
Agreed, and straight from James.
The Catholic Church has failed on all counts. It’s theology and practice are contrary to the Word of G-d in more ways than we have time to enumerate. Catholics are wonderful, sincere people, and if they are hungry for G-d, he will bring them out, just as he brought our fathers out of Egypt by the hand of Moshe Rabbeinu,Moses our Teacher.
I think you and I are mostly in agreement here; I won't go so far as to say that one cannot be Catholic and Christian, but I will say that the Catholic church allows/accepts/encourages things which it ought not — you mention graven images, and I find the reverence-to-the-point-of-deification of Mary [i.e. co-redemptrix and queen of heaven
] to be quite objectionable.
Your post #10.....nope. Not all ECFs were in agreement on Peter being the rock. So in two different threads you’re spouting falsehoods to advance your unbiblical position. You’re not off to a good start.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
